[139329] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: State of QoS peering in Nanog
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stefan Fouant)
Sun Apr 3 12:41:09 2011
From: "Stefan Fouant" <sfouant@shortestpathfirst.net>
To: "'Leo Bicknell'" <bicknell@ufp.org>,
"'NANOG list'" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110402215607.GA86553@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 12:40:14 -0400
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell@ufp.org]
> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 5:56 PM
>
> In an IP network, the bandwidth constraints are almost always across an
> administrative boundary. This means in the majority of the case across
> transit circuits, not peering. 80-90% of the packet loss in the
> network happens at the end user access port, inbound or outbound.
> Another 5-10% occurs where regional or non-transit free providers buy
> transit. Lastly, 3-5% occurs where there are geographic or
> geopolitical issues (oceans to cross, country boarders with restrictive
> governments to cross).
Hi Leo,
I think you bring up some interesting points here, and my experience and
observations largely lend credence to what you are saying. I'd like to know
however, just for my own personal knowledge, are the numbers you are using
above based on some broad analysis or study of multiple providers, or are
you deriving these numbers likewise you're your own personal observations?
Thanks,
Stefan Fouant
